On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Igor Stasenko <[email protected]> wrote:
> how different our systems would be, if guys who started it 20 years back > would think a bit about future? > The guys who spend their time thinking about it lose, just as they always do. Worse is better wins on the market. Brendan Eich was right to fear something even worse than his rapidly hacked brainstorm child - i.e. if it were not JavaScript/EcmaScript, we might be using proprietary VBScript from Microsoft. Do you remember those battles between behemoths trying to place proprietary technologies in our browsers? I do. 'Embrace and extend' was a strategy discussed and understood even in grade school. I'm a bit curious whether Google will be facing an EOLAS patent suit for NaCl, or whether that privilege will go to whomever uses NaCl and WebSockets to connect browsers together. It is interesting to see JS evolve in non-backwards-compatible ways to help eliminate some of the poisons of its original design - eliminating the global namespace, dropping callee/caller/arguments, development of a true module system that prevents name shadowing and allows effective caching, and so on. Mark Miller, who has performed significant work on object capability security, has also started to shape JavaScript to make it into a moderately sane programming language... something that could be used as a more effective compilation target for other languages.
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
